Should corrupt MPs be barred from taking part in politics?

If that happen the political system of the UK would collapse - considering 'all' of them are self serving/corrupt intentioned and have no interests in the voter once elected - this applying to 'any' political party candidate or government.!!

We have always been governed/represented by fraudulent self serving political crooks since we were born - and thats never ever going to change - the public having become 'subservient' too our political masters that 'control us'....24/7/365....and the apathy shown by the public is used by our politicians and political system to 'their advantage' - by them doing....exactly as they like once elected - that also applies to every countries government/politicians on this planet.

In todays world the continuing exposures of political wrongdoing in general - and the continuing exposures of individual politicians....seems to be the accepted 'norm' - passing with little condemnation from the public....who have a 'moan' and then move on - we not dwelling on something 'we' have no control over.

The political claim of democracy for the peoples - is for these off-the-wall political faith follower dreamers out there - we the public are allowed a vote in an election - but thats where the publics....'interference' is ended by the political system - because all the manifesto promises made too get elected....are abandoned by the political party that gets elected - and 'they then' carry out their own agenda's that 'were not' listed on the winners manifesto.

Politics is just a 'game' for the elected participants - who try and get away with all and anything during their term of office.

Not one elected government in our current lifetimes has 'ever' benefited the voters who voted a political party into power....the voters have been 'failed/ignored' by all elected governments.

I was in the Philippines during the Presidential elections in 2010. The winner was a thoroughly decent fellow name of Benigno Aquino (or Noy-Noy as he is known there), whose mother was a former president who led a popular uprising and whose father was gunned down by Marcos's henchmen. Also standing though were some familiar names. Ferdinand Marcos was there (known as Bong-Bong, and the beloved grandson of she with the million shoes) and not doing badly. Also there, standing on an anti-sleaze platform was none other than Joseph Estrada (known as Erap) who went to prison for pocketing the national treasury when he was President, and asking earnestly to be given a second chance. They do love their rogues in the Philippines!

We are setting a precedent, based on the principle that full citizenship is a privilege, rather than a right acquired by birth.

Something for the debating society, since there are strong arguments for and against.

Denying certain attributes of citizenship is already considered fair punishment in a court of law. For example, many criminals are denied the right to roam the streets freely for a certain time. Others can be deported. Bad traders and those made bankrupt through their own fraud should be barred by Companies House for being a director of a company, although with bankers and public sector corporates, this is reinterpreted to mean, given them an extra bonus, a promotion, and let the taxpayer bail out the victims. There is an argument about whether we should give prisoners the right to vote. Some might well argue that by offending against society, the convict should the lose to choose representation, and this is part of the sentence.

Against this, and denial of fairly basic rights could be done arbritarily, or corruptly. We only have to say "nonsense" to the wrong politician, and we could be in deep trouble. Already, hearsay and gossip is admissable in law in cases involving child protection or terrorism. It is legal to deny someone a career in a wide range of professions just because a malicious piece of gossip made it to a police notebook. Who is to say the politician was being corrupt, rather than simply making the best of an impossible dilemma, and is now being pushed out of the way for being inconvenient? It ends up like the High Treason charges in Tudor times.

Politicians rely on the strength of their reputation, tested by free and open disclosure made by Opponents, in order to be elected. Effectively, it becomes a trial whereby the jury is thousands of adult constituents. It fails when the overwhelming majority of these jurors are stupid, ignorant or simply are not given a proper choice, such is the way the party system operates here.

Before we consider a life ban on "corrupt" politicians, perhaps we need first to put our democratic processes and the party system in order?

Common sense tells you, that it should be the case without question. However those that sit in Governments feel free to exercise their right to greed and dishonesty, without penalty. Take Lord Archer, a convicted criminal, but still retains his title and membership to the House of Lords.

Take Lord Hannigfield, a convicted criminal, but still retains his worthless title and still able to vote on Laws that effect you and me.

Others, who feel that they have "done nothing wrong" and repaid thousands of pounds, claimed on dishonesty, are allowed to continue in their venture of fiddling those who pay their taxes and would be locked up at the slightest discrepancy in honesty.

So, yes. Corrupt MP's should be locked up and banned for life in Politics.

Have a nice day.

No. The MPS should be recalled and face a by-election in there own constituency. The only people that should sack MPs should be constituents.

any corrupt official should face harsh penalties, including jail and asset seizure.

Corruption should be hunted and snuffed out of politics for good.

Yes.

Jeffrey Archer is still a Lord - it is enough to make you sick.

No wonder politicians are despised.

ALL IN IT TOGETHER. ??????????????????????????

That would be all of them then.